COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. TIRUR MEDICAL HALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (hereinafter called the Tribunal) has referred to this Court under S.256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for short the Act. The following question of law has arisen out of the order of the Tribunal dated 30th August, 1977 in I.T.A. No. 162/ Cochin/1976-77:

(2.) The assessee is a firm of three partners carrying on business in the name and style "Tirur Medical Hall". The partnership was constituted under a deed dated 15-11-1967. On 16-5-1974, the assessee filed an application before the Income Tax Officer in Form No 11-A praying for registration of the firm. Subsequently, the assessee realised that the correct form in which the application should have been filed was Form No. 11 and hence it filed another application in Form No. 11 on 22-8-1974 Since the accounting year of the assessee relevant for the assessment year 1974-75 ended on 31-3-1974, the aforesaid application for registration was beyond the time limit prescribed by S.184(4) of the Act. While putting in the application the assessee therefore submitted an explanation that the delay in filing the same was caused on account of the fact that one of the partners was suffering from "mental worries" and his physical condition was also not satisfactory from 1 3 1974 onwards. The Income Tax Officer was not satisfied with the said explanation and hence by his order dated 30th August, 1975 Annexure A declined to condone the delay and rejected the application for registration. The said order was specifically expressed as one made under S.185(1)(b) of the Act.

(3.) The assessee feeling aggrieved by that order appealed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Calicut reiterating his submission that the delay in filing the application for registration had been caused on account of the mental and physical ailment of the partner by name Kunhimoidu, who was said to have been undergoing treatment during the period 10-2-1974 to 20-5-1974. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner went into the merits of the said contention and held that the explanation offered by the assessee was vague and unsatisfactory and rejected the appeal as per his proceedings dated 23-2-1976 Annexure 'C'.